5 charts on South Africa as a source country for international student recrui...
ODI Knowledge Policy and Power event presentation Harry Jones
1. Knowledge, Policy and Power
Understanding the role of context and
actors in the Nepal petroleum sector
‘Knowledge, Policy and Power
in International Development’
European Book launch
1st May 2012
Harry Jones (ODI, RAPID)
2. Study context
‘Prospecting policy issues’ for the Nepal Centre
for Inclusive Growth (CIG)
• Sector analysis and policy options
• Institutional arrangements
• Knowledge-policy interface
Has been used to:
• Select policy issues for CIG engagement
• Identify entry points, opportunities & risks for
CIG projects
4. Petroleum in Nepal: 3 issues
o Nepal – India import regime £40M
p.a
Bad deal for Nepal
£100M
o Price setting p.a
De facto subsidy
£10-50M
o Petrol supply chains
Corruption, theft and inefficiency
5. Knowledge, policy and power
Key dimensions:
• Political context
• Actors
• Knowledge (different types)
• Knowledge interaction processes
6. Political context
Dimension Price setting Supply chain
Capacity to Turmoil & instability
absorb change
Informal political Elite subsidy Syndicates and
relationships patronage
Separation of Power of cabinet Many oversight
state powers bodies for NOC
External forces South Asian petrol
subsidies
Formal political Lack of local
participation elections
10. Implications?
What is this useful for?
• Guides policy engagement and dialogue,
highlights sub-issues and windows
• Highlights topics and key actors for
knowledge/research to influence change
• Guidance for policy-making, especially for
knowledge-based tools
12. ODI is the UK’s leading independent think tank on
international development and humanitarian issues.
We aim to inspire and inform policy and practice to
reduce poverty by locking together high-quality
applied research and practical policy advice.
The views presented here are those of the speaker,
and do not necessarily represent the views of ODI or
our partners.
111 Westminster Bridge Road, London, SE1 7JD
T: +44 207 9220 300
www.odi.org.uk
h.jones@odi.org.uk
Notas del editor
Research on the policy process Talk about the approach we’re using ...useful for understanding
PEA is used to understand reform processes, p-m, national balance of power Incentives: e.g. A prevailing perspective that political parties engage in pp not to try and solve ‘policy problems’ but to capture resources and maximise their own power Institutions: e.g. Structure of CA and Ministries, gives certain spaces for influence on policy Structures: e.g. Historical patterns of wealth and deprivation in the country Point is: power battles, bargaining and negotiation and politics, NOT analysis and problem-solving
PEA is used to understand reform processes, p-m, national balance of power Incentives: e.g. A prevailing perspective that political parties engage in pp not to try and solve ‘policy problems’ but to capture resources and maximise their own power Institutions: e.g. Structure of CA and Ministries, gives certain spaces for influence on policy Structures: e.g. Historical patterns of wealth and deprivation in the country Point is: power battles, bargaining and negotiation and politics, NOT analysis and problem-solving
Dimensions which shape policy making on an issue, or in a country Actors: interests, values and beliefs, and credibility+capacities Political context: e.g. Level of competition, decentralisation shapes opps+cons’s for knowledge Knowledge: role of research-based, practical and citizen knowledge KI processes: how links between K and P are ‘wired’, dissemination, consulting, collaboration, CB etc
Dimensions which shape policy making on an issue, or in a country Actors: interests, values and beliefs, and credibility+capacities Political context: e.g. Level of competition, decentralisation shapes opps+cons’s for knowledge Knowledge: role of research-based, practical and citizen knowledge KI processes: how links between K and P are ‘wired’, dissemination, consulting, collaboration, CB etc
INTEREST GROUP: This involves the competition of well-organised rival groups. Policy making takes place largely behind the scenes, in informal meetings and networks, or in closed spaces. Decision makers being forced to take sides, with shifting alliances and bargaining, with incremental changes rather than major confrontations, won depending on the energy and strength of groups. CLIENT: Small groups benefit directly from policies where the general public is often the loser. Well-organised clients can secure political support largely in private; those who stand to lose out are often unaware of the issue, or hard to organise. politicians using government spending to reward their constituents ENTREPRENEURIAL: very broad groups in society, are pitted against concentrated special interests. This is likely to involve political entrepreneurs identifying opportunities and bringing together a large coalition of beneficiaries, framing issues to capture the public imagination. Examples : environmental standards on companies. MAJORITARIAN: policy making is more likely to play out in public fora such as legislative debates or policy debates around an election. The public debate often addresses questions of whether social benefits exceed the costs, and basic ideological beliefs and values may come into play, in potentially partisan dialogues.
INTEREST GROUP: This involves the competition of well-organised rival groups. Policy making takes place largely behind the scenes, in informal meetings and networks, or in closed spaces. Decision makers being forced to take sides, with shifting alliances and bargaining, with incremental changes rather than major confrontations, won depending on the energy and strength of groups. CLIENT: Small groups benefit directly from policies where the general public is often the loser. Well-organised clients can secure political support largely in private; those who stand to lose out are often unaware of the issue, or hard to organise. politicians using government spending to reward their constituents ENTREPRENEURIAL: very broad groups in society, are pitted against concentrated special interests. This is likely to involve political entrepreneurs identifying opportunities and bringing together a large coalition of beneficiaries, framing issues to capture the public imagination. Examples : environmental standards on companies. MAJORITARIAN: policy making is more likely to play out in public fora such as legislative debates or policy debates around an election. The public debate often addresses questions of whether social benefits exceed the costs, and basic ideological beliefs and values may come into play, in potentially partisan dialogues.
INTEREST GROUP: This involves the competition of well-organised rival groups. Policy making takes place largely behind the scenes, in informal meetings and networks, or in closed spaces. Decision makers being forced to take sides, with shifting alliances and bargaining, with incremental changes rather than major confrontations, won depending on the energy and strength of groups. CLIENT: Small groups benefit directly from policies where the general public is often the loser. Well-organised clients can secure political support largely in private; those who stand to lose out are often unaware of the issue, or hard to organise. politicians using government spending to reward their constituents ENTREPRENEURIAL: very broad groups in society, are pitted against concentrated special interests. This is likely to involve political entrepreneurs identifying opportunities and bringing together a large coalition of beneficiaries, framing issues to capture the public imagination. Examples : environmental standards on companies. MAJORITARIAN: policy making is more likely to play out in public fora such as legislative debates or policy debates around an election. The public debate often addresses questions of whether social benefits exceed the costs, and basic ideological beliefs and values may come into play, in potentially partisan dialogues.
Policy making different from issue to issue, Will help you engage in that issue, understand how to work towards preferred outcomes or to improve PM on it 2. Country-wide structures, landscape of the knowledge-policy interface, improve ‘governance’ and policy making